We asked Maha Mahopadhyaya Si Agnihotra Ramanuja Thathacari (aged 96),
who as the author of many books on Vedas is known as a Vedic authority, on
issues of law banning religious conversions, its political opposition,
support from many spiritual persons, Karunanidhi's 'Hindu is a thief'
comment. That genius began to talk like an open flood.

From that:

"Anti-conversion ordinance is very wrong, law enables a man to live as
per his religion, that is an individual right. This ordinance
indirectly violates that right. If a man changes his religion, it punishes those
helping him/her.

If the idea is to strenghthen the religious belief of a person, it must
punish one who converts; instead of that, punishing someone helping him
is unfair. Only if you say that the change of religion is a crime,
then helping him doing so is a crime. This prevents a man's rights.

It is difficult to make out the reason for rushing this hasty
ordinance. It is clear it is politically motivated. It is politically advantageous to suddenly spring this ordinance and quickly pass it. If you
look at it from the point of view of religion and society, if the social
rule is to punish those who want to change religion, then you must also
punish those who have those religious and sectarian ideas.

In a democracy people's opinion are most important. In such a situation
only one religion must hold sway. But under the Indian conditions, you
cannot have a principle like that. The basic intention of this
ordinance is to prevent Harijans from going over to another religion.

This is a recent negative developement. Where were the the Harijans who
want to change their religion so far, what conditions they were/are in;
that is what we must consider. To discard religious strictures does not
equate to change of religion.

In India, the jati discipline, which has religious sanction, kept a
good section of the society as Untouchables. For thousands of years, those
communities were ostracised. Jati rules do maintain that Harijans are
Untouchables. How does a man become untouchable to another man?

It is believed that the rules made by Brahmins were in vogue till
recently. Politics also gave a place to that. In those bygone days, if a
society said some were to be ostracised, there was nothing with that.

Brahminism still stands on jati-based rules. So, the Brahmin still
hankers after no change of religion by anyone. That is why a lot of
Harijans live under Brahminical discipline. The political Constitution abolished
untouchability; but Brahminism has not come to terms with that. That is
why the Untouchables have realised they are not getting justice under
Brahminism, have broken those rules and started a new era. To prevent it
is a sinful act. It simply means the the status of Untouchables should
continue as it as. That is against basic people's rights.

One can further say that such an anti-conversion ordinance is cruel and
fraught with terror. It simple tries to prevent those who have been
kept on the sidelines for thousands of years and want to better their
lives. If they (government) are bold enough, they can even bring a law saying
"Harijans should live as they do now, any change will be punished".

In a democracy, everyone has a right to live as he/she pleases. The
constitution provides freedom of action. But your action should not oppose
the general society. Mahatma Gandhi fought against the Untouchability
which has support of the Brahminical jati rules. Before him Ramanuja did
the same. But nobody listened to them. Even the (low) births of
ThiruppaN Azhwar and Nathanar were not respected by the people.

Till India got freedom, Brahminical rules were in practice. But in a
democratic constitution, they were rejected. For 50 years, Harijans have
progressed on their own. But because of brahminical influence, they
could not progress fully. They were unable to approach Brahminical
establishment or a temple. They were waiting for 50 years. But Brahminism has
not accepted their demands. That is why they want to go away from
(Hindu) society and join religions which offer them equality. It will be
good if Brahmins acknowledge and accept their uprising.

But Brahmins are not willing to accept it, Brahminism is not ready for
it. They insist that Harijans stay where they are. Books such as Manu
Shastra which underpin Brahminism were the law till yesterday, kept the
Harijans away and ostracised them and their descendents. Over the course
of time, if Brahminism also does not undergo a change where will the
Harijans go? That is why they get ideas of changing religion. Harijans
don't want to remain Untouchables, that is why they think of changing
their religion. But this (anti-conversion) law in practice insists that
they remain Untouchables. It amounts to insisting that those who want
to come out of untouchability should be punsihed.

As per this law, it is a crime to propagate religions. But it is also
unfair that religion which reinforce differences should also be
propagated. The religious mutt heads who spoke in the public meeting in the
beach are preventing individual rights. They must be prosecuted first under
the new law.

On seeing Karunanidhi's, the Tamil leader, answer in a Tamil daily, I
thought I should not look the other way and write this letter. I am
not in a position to come to you and make the request. (Late)
Paramacharya got a place in world history and everyone's applause. The South
Indian Mutt heads association was started by him and guided by him. I was
a representative of that for a long time and myself and Musiri advocate
Krishna Rao were its secrataries. Before that, we worked along with
late Dharma Rakshamani Balasubramaniam and got safegaurds for mutts and
other religious establishments in the Constitiution. Paramacharya made
history. In that connection, myself and the District Judge
N.S.Parthasarathy Aiyer went to Sringeri, had a darshan of that Acharya and gave
him the opinions of Kanchi Acharya.

We told him "Varnasrama must live. We must also make sure that
religious organizations for the propagation of the same (varnasrama) are
supported." In those days, Congress was the only political force in the
Independence Movement. That was in the hands of Brahmins and those who
supported varnasrama. So, those in favour of abolishing varnasrama made
reform movements and propagated that Untouchaility based on jati and
varnasrama be abolished.

Varnasramis calling themselves sanatanis opposed that (reformists). They
said "Jati system is superior, only that is changeless and Brahmins
must lead it" and opposed Gandhi also. since the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam
was based in Kumbakonam in those days, to support him (Paramacharya) a
faction was formed in Kumbakonam and propagted Sanatanis ideas. Then we
occasionally met Gandhi and conveyed to him our Sanatani's opposition.

Mahatma said "If you want a new society, forget varnasrama; those books
say if you see an Untouchable keep away from him and don't give him
a place to stay in the village. This varnasrama way of life is cruel" and
also told us, "Are you not ashamed to speak like this?"

That is why in the Constitution a provision was made to abolish
Untouchability. Then we were of the opinion that varnasrama should rule and
nothing (no law) should be made against it. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said
"In free India, there is no place for varnasrama, to abolish that we
have added anti-Untouchability provisions."

At that time Dr. Ambedkar was writing the Constitution, we had to convey
to him to give assurances for holding religious beliefs and religious
organizations. Late Allladi Krishnaswami Aiyer asked me to personally
convey to Ambedkar my ideas (about religious safegaurds).

As Secratary of All India Mutt Association, I along with late Madras
advocate Champakesa Iyengar met him. I was surprised by Ambedkar's words.
This is what he said, "I am also a religious man, believer in god. But
jati Hindus like you have not accepted that". This brought tears to my
eyes.

Even though the Constitution has prohibited Untouchability, since
varnasrama is deeply rooted among the people, people did not listen to him.
That is why he joined Buddhism. He was born in a poor, Untouchable
family. From his time untouchability has gone up by ten times. When jati
Hindus ostracised him on varnasrama grounds, no one can forget Christian
missionaries going to his support.

Even though it was prohibited by law, no religious leader came forward
to them and gave a lifting hand. Today's situation is that both
politicians and religious people demean them and ostracise them. Varnasramis
still want to keep them out of temples. In the time of Kamaraj, it was
(in)famous when he asked his cabinet member , Harijan leader Kakkan, not
to enter temples.

Now Jayalalitha is bringing a law to ban conversion. It punishes only
the man trying to convert another man, it does not punish convertee
himself. That is what Karunanidhi condemned. Since you are taking a
political position, you are condemning Karunanidhi. I can't understand whether
you mean Untouchables should remain so all the time without any
conversion.

If this is ordinary political issue, nobody will bother. But since this
(untouchability) is based on varnasrama, unless we can proclaim that we
have given up varnasrama, it won't help Untouchables. Unless we have a
meeting in (Madras) Beach (famous for big meetings) and proclaim,
"We have abolished varnasrama", this matter won't rest.